G already PAID this affiliate. The check was cashed. The demand for return of the funds was made. Thats a very critical issue which seems to be somewhat diluted by some of the PR spin. You are supposed to catch them BEFORE the check clears.

You normally DON'T sue unless this occurs since you generally have no damage incurred.

For example, you catch a cheater before the check is cut and cashed/cleared, terminate the fraudster and credit back funds to the advertiser. Sometimes you issue a stop order on the check. Iv'e never seen a Superior Court action under these circumstances.

Click and impression fraud used to be the hottest issue in online advertising, with operators of 'get-paid-to-surf' programs and early CPC-based ad networks virtually crippled by simplistic devices and methods in the late 90s and into 2000-2001. The issue appeared to fall from the radar of mainstream online advertising for a couple of years after that as online ad spending began to dry up and advertisers moved to support CPM-based networks that placed an explicit emphasis on fraud prevention.

Many in the industry (including a huge number of Geek/Talkers) have long feared that this issue would inevitably arise to challenge AdSense extraordinarily. While it's easy to guard against the more simplistic software-based methods and proxy exploits, AdSense's supreme roster of advertisers and their high rates of pay serve as irresistable carrots dangling in front of hungry click fraudsters.

What worries me is not only a rise in the use of devices that have been developed explusively for use in exploiting AdSense, but the presence of requests on programmer BBs and freelance marketplaces for people to click on ads a given number of times a day in exchange for a share in the revenues. These worrying trends, along with exploitation by orchestrated criminal networks, are threats not only to AdWords advertisers but to the viability of AdSense itself.

We've already seen a number of publishers expelled from the network this month who claim to have done nothnig in breach of Google's terms. This could very well be the case, as it was when high rates of 'innocent' publishers were expelled from networks in the late 90s due to poor validation systems employed by networks at the time. If Google can't discriminate between genuine fraud and either anti-competitive clicking or normal human/bot activity, much more collateral damage may be suffered before fraud is diminished as a major issue for the network.

This is a worrying trend and while I wouldn't like to be in Google's shoes right now, I have my fingers crossed that other Geek/Talkers are spared from having their accounts deactivated due to hostile or genuinely irregular click activity.

G already PAID this affiliate. The check was cashed. The demand for return of the funds was made. Thats a very critical issue which seems to be somewhat diluted by some of the PR spin. You are supposed to catch them BEFORE the check clears.

You normally DON'T sue unless this occurs since you generally have no damage incurred.

But to be fair to google, if it was a sophisticated play across numerous accounts it might not be "catchable" the first month or so because you might dismiss it as just a stats irregularity, we have all probably seen sites of ours have giant traffic spikes when google falls just right or stories get passed around the bloggers etc. So I think if anything, this shows that google just doesn't dismiss high paying sites out of hand as some try to insist they do.

I'm not surprised at all that the owner of the company that is sued by Google is a Russian national (or Russian-American)...

<Snipped defamatory remarks. Firstly, Google has stated that it has yet to confirm the true identities of its defendants. The two names appearing in the claim may be false. Secondly, this BB does not tolerate discrimination/generalisation based on one's nationality. People from many countries are responsible for spamming and other rogue activities online. In fact, the country that still produces the largest volume of spam globally is a highly developed western nation that maintains only 5% of the world's population, so suggesting that Google should be wary of working with people simply because their names appear to reflect a particular foreign nationality is largely irrational.>

Thoughts: G needs to sue dozens more. Just do it and send loud signals accross the planet. Why keep this so quiet G. Leak the news to the press back in May. Next, a debtors exam and actually attempt to collect the Judgement. Hire a PI, follow the money trail, continue to feed the press with "leaks" and get your "INK"

It is intriguing that Google didn't have a field day with this judgement. Perhaps back in May the company felt that its best course of action would be to avoid issuing any release that deals with click fraud in an effort to keep the concept out of the headlines. This date also corresponds fairly closely with the network's debut of the CPM-based site targetting feature, which was a proactive gesture aimed at subtly sending a message to the market that click fraud could be battled through evasion (whether the message made sense or not is another matter).

The only other factor that seems to have possibly had a bearing is the fact that Google certainly realises that even a quiet judgement will be heard by the underground elements that the network is trying to target. While small operators who click on a few of their own AdSense ads from the comfort of their bedroom may not have heard of the $75K fine, it's almost certain that organised, commercial operators would have felt the ripples within days of the announcement. Perhaps Google felt that this was a safe medium between serving as a moderate deterrent and keeping the issue out of the public eye for a few weeks.

Since G has suffered from a number of click fraud related articles during the past two months, however, perhaps they'd take a different strategic approach if the judgement had been presented in July rather than May. Nowadays, they'd surely see that a release that discusses click fraud is not necessarily going to do the company harm, as long as the release puts a positive spin on the topic by making G seem either inpenetrable (which it isn't) or determined enough to mean business in protecting its advertisers' accounts from fraud (which it hopefully is).

At least we heard about the outcome, thanks to the savvy PI work of Steve.